Where would a body be hidden?

by Fossilfuel 22.10.11 1:17

If the McCanns have disposed of Madeleines body, where would be a feasible place?

With the current trial of Vincent Tabak in the news and the shocking discovery of his victim Jo Yeates at the side of a road, it makes me wonder more and more about where Madeleines body could be?

If the McCanns are guilty of hiding/disposing of their childs body where would they place it?

I feel that if it was disposed of in a panic, due to shock of an unexpected death or limited disposal time, it would have been 'dumped' somewhere quickly without much thought and would have been found relatively quickly, ie Jo Yeates.

If the parents had had more time (and maybe they did?) they could have been more methodical in their approach, researched the topography of the area and found a highly 'suitable' place where a body could lay undiscovered.

I know there is the school of thought that Madeleines body could have been refrigerated for a while and then carried in the boot of the Renault for disposal but where would that final place of disposal be?

How does a mind work in this sort of situation, surely they would have been seen by someone during the disposal or on the way to it?

Maybe there are posters here who would have more of an idea due to their past/present professions, ie PeterMac?

Will a body ever be found, I hope to god it will.

by rainbow-fairy 22.10.11 2:21

Fossilfuel wrote:If the McCanns have disposed of Madeleines body, where would be a feasible place?

With the current trial of Vincent Tabak in the news and the shocking discovery of his victim Jo Yeates at the side of a road, it makes me wonder more and more about where Madeleines body could be?

If the McCanns are guilty of hiding/disposing of their childs body where would they place it?

I feel that if it was disposed of in a panic, due to shock of an unexpected death or limited disposal time, it would have been 'dumped' somewhere quickly without much thought and would have been found relatively quickly, ie Jo Yeates.

If the parents had had more time (and maybe they did?) they could have been more methodical in their approach, researched the topography of the area and found a highly 'suitable' place where a body could lay undiscovered.

I know there is the school of thought that Madeleines body could have been refrigerated for a while and then carried in the boot of the Renault for disposal but where would that final place of disposal be?

How does a mind work in this sort of situation, surely they would have been seen by someone during the disposal or on the way to it?

Maybe there are posters here who would have more of an idea due to their past/present professions, ie PeterMac?

Will a body ever be found, I hope to god it will.

Hi Fossilfuel - just a quick point - I don't think it necessarily follows you would be seen. After all, Team McCann wish us to believe MBM was spirited away by an abductor on May 3, 07, YET NOBODY SAW A THING - unless, of course, you believe Jane Tanner, who could've just as likely seen the Yeti with her (un)believable tale of egg man, bundleman, etc etc ad nauseum...

As to FINAL place of disposal - I lean towards closer, rather than further away, to home.

by mexx 22.10.11 4:27

This is the crux of the matter. Hiding a body in an unknown location in foreign country is a massive challenge. IMO the lack of information on this crucial point was why the Portuguese decided not to charge the McCanns with anything. The dogs findings are fundamental, but with no body the case was too weak.

I have never seen a theory on how they disposed of the body that I could buy into, so I remain perplexed.

by **tigger** 22.10.11 7:45

I think they had her buried. This is obviously not based on any evidence but there are the following considerations:
They became very religious overnight, imo. they squared whatever 'happened' with what conscience they have.
Other people who must be 'in the know' would be more understanding and helpful if they had done what they could after Maddie's demise. I'm thinking of family and 'close friends'. E.g a terrible 'accident' befell Maddie, a PM could not be allowed as it would ruin the parents and twins, so they did what they could.
Only one or two, I think, will know the exact location.

So imo, she was removed from the flat by a third party and put in cold storage not far away. I favour Murat for organising this. Then at a later date, the Renault was used to transport a defrosting body to its last resting place. I don't for a minute think that was done by the McCanns.
The Renault had a very high mileage on it for the time they had the car. Someone else did it and naturally would not have used his own car.
Their trip to Huelva three months after the 'official' demise of Maddie fits with the requirement of the church to visit the grave three months after burial.
The area is known for its high acidity, there will be nothing left of the body by now.
I used to be very against this Huelva business, but the Huelva trip was not attended by lots of press, if any. The few pictures of that trip are curious and there is an eyewitness who says they were leaving town around lunch time. The PJ have some record of their movement that day, which doesn't make sense in terms of what they said they were doing.

Other hints for me, Kate mentions burial (in the book or in interview, don't know) . Throwing a body into the sea is very risky, I can't see that happening at all.
No, they had help and some of that help had to believe they did what they could to comply with the religious requirements. In other words, they couldn't help it, a terrible accident, but a decent burial and a safe location. All I need now is the GPS coordinates...

by rainbow-fairy 22.10.11 8:24

tigger wrote:I think they had her buried. This is obviously not based on any evidence but there are the following considerations:
They became very religious overnight, imo. they squared whatever 'happened' with what conscience they have.
Other people who must be 'in the know' would be more understanding and helpful if they had done what they could after Maddie's demise. I'm thinking of family and 'close friends'. E.g a terrible 'accident' befell Maddie, a PM could not be allowed as it would ruin the parents and twins, so they did what they could.
Only one or two, I think, will know the exact location.

So imo, she was removed from the flat by a third party and put in cold storage not far away. I favour Murat for organising this. Then at a later date, the Renault was used to transport a defrosting body to its last resting place. I don't for a minute think that was done by the McCanns.
The Renault had a very high mileage on it for the time they had the car. Someone else did it and naturally would not have used his own car.
Their trip to Huelva three months after the 'official' demise of Maddie fits with the requirement of the church to visit the grave three months after burial.
The area is known for its high acidity, there will be nothing left of the body by now.
I used to be very against this Huelva business, but the Huelva trip was not attended by lots of press, if any. The few pictures of that trip are curious and there is an eyewitness who says they were leaving town around lunch time. The PJ have some record of their movement that day, which doesn't make sense in terms of what they said they were doing.

Other hints for me, Kate mentions burial (in the book or in interview, don't know) . Throwing a body into the sea is very risky, I can't see that happening at all.
No, they had help and some of that help had to believe they did what they could to comply with the religious requirements. In other words, they couldn't help it, a terrible accident, but a decent burial and a safe location. All I need now is the GPS coordinates...

Do you know what Tigger, you could be right! Although I'm kinda the opposite to you - I always went for the Huelva idea, but recently I've edged away from that to believing Maddie could be much, much closer to home...
I think there was mention of planting a rose bush for Maddie (or did I dream that?) Plus I found it creepy when K said she goes into M's bedroom and opens the curtains to look out over the garden 'to say hello to Maddie'. It is often asked also why K+G don't sell up and downsize to somewhere cheaper...

Then I wasn't sure about that, and Kates comment about leaving PT 'leaving Maddie behind' I found that really odd. I place quite a bit of importance on what people say - the brain will leak the truth out in any way it can!

To sum up, firstly I thought Huelva. Then Rothley. Then PT. Leaning back to Huelva/Rothley again now!

by Smokeandmirrors 22.10.11 8:29

tigger wrote:

. Throwing a body into the sea is very risky, I can't see that happening at all.

I disagree with this completely, no offence, although I know exactly where you are coming from, the sea giving up it's secrets and all that. I would agree if it were to be assumed that a body simply fell off a boat or was dropped into the sea near to the shore, but it would be entirely feasible for a body not to be recovered if it were weighted and taken far out into the sea. I think anyway!

Imagine a scenario where you had something you needed to get rid of, in the dark with the possibility of being caught or that thing being found. Suppose you had access to "someone" or "local connections" who had a boat, a small boat. If the sea was set to be calm for a few hours how far could it get out to sea fuel allowing for the return journey. If a boat could travel for an hour or more, and an item sufficiently weighted, I am guessing that something could be quite easily gotten rid of.

Suppose that "thing" turned up somewhere later, would the salt water have had enough effect to delete certain evidence, and would it not be open to the distinct possibility that an "abductor" had committed the crime in any case?

I may be quite alone in my thinking of this, but after 4 yrs no other suggestion of where a body could be considering the attention focused from 10pm 3/5/07 seems reasonable to me. I would have thought the whole frozen/moved weeks later theory as risky as hell.

by rainbow-fairy 22.10.11 8:46

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
tigger wrote:

. Throwing a body into the sea is very risky, I can't see that happening at all.

I disagree with this completely, no offence, although I know exactly where you are coming from, the sea giving up it's secrets and all that. I would agree if it were to be assumed that a body simply fell off a boat or was dropped into the sea near to the shore, but it would be entirely feasible for a body not to be recovered if it were weighted and taken far out into the sea. I think anyway!

Imagine a scenario where you had something you needed to get rid of, in the dark with the possibility of being caught or that thing being found. Suppose you had access to "someone" or "local connections" who had a boat, a small boat. If the sea was set to be calm for a few hours how far could it get out to sea fuel allowing for the return journey. If a boat could travel for an hour or more, and an item sufficiently weighted, I am guessing that something could be quite easily gotten rid of.

Suppose that "thing" turned up somewhere later, would the salt water have had enough effect to delete certain evidence, and would it not be open to the distinct possibility that an "abductor" had committed the crime in any case?

I may be quite alone in my thinking of this, but after 4 yrs no other suggestion of where a body could be considering the attention focused from 10pm 3/5/07 seems reasonable to me. I would have thought the whole frozen/moved weeks later theory as risky as hell.

Smokeandmirrors, not leaping on you here, but have to ask (second bit in bold) Do you disagree with the dog alerts/findings in the boot of the Scenic?
First bit in bold - there may have been lots of attention (self propelled IMO) but there was also MUCH protection and help. ANYONE could have moved a tiny cadaver, in a bag etc, who would we be looking at? I mean, it's only recently that it's emerged the McCann's were FAR from Brits alone abroad - it now comes out, for example, they were dining with Clement Freud who has a villa in PDL!
Do you think these scenario's are in no way possible?

by **tigger** 22.10.11 8:55

But there is very good evidence of a body being transported in the Renault. It has to be taken into consideration. I tried to include all the evidence available and their behaviour.
It would be at least as risky to transport a body to throw into the sea. You'd also have to be very familiar with the currents wherever you did it. That would mean local knowledge. For me no way.
It's primarily their background, characters etc. that for me preclude even outright murder. I'm sure they've squared it with their own consciences, but some guilt shines through from time to time.
Actually, my signature is quite apposite, it's more the Macbeths than anything else.
Dr. Roberts is worth reading on earlier analyses of interviews, where Gerry can't help mentioning a 'key' from time to time. Kate said something like 'DNA in the car can't be Maddie's, they'd have to take it from the body...' Not a quote! I have to look it up. Implication was that there was a body to access.

I agree with you that it's a high risk, burial, but not in the soil of Huelva. I'm sure they didn't do it themselves either. Metodo 3 were already in evidence? A very dodgy outfit, dealing with drug barons, underworld figures, they'd know people and places. How did the McCanns 'find' Metodo3? Because they were particularly NOT known for finding lost children.

by **tigger** 22.10.11 9:07

Rainbow Fairy wrote: snipped quoteI think there was mention of planting a rose bush for Maddie (or did I dream that?) Plus I found it creepy when K said she goes into M's bedroom and opens the curtains to look out over the garden 'to say hello to Maddie'. It is often asked also why K+G don't sell up and downsize to somewhere cheaper...

Then I wasn't sure about that, and Kates comment about leaving PT 'leaving Maddie behind I found that really odd. I place quite a bit of importance on what people say - the brain will leak the truth out in any way it can! unquote

As for downsizing from Rothley Towers, wouldn't befit their status. In fact I'm sure they'd love to live somewhere a lot posher, but it's too risky to stretch the Fund that far. If all had gone to plan, they would now be living in a lovely big country house with acres of land.

That bit about saying hello to Maddie, the rose bush etc. Bound to be in some or other Mills and Boone. Keeping the room as it was will also tug at the public's heartstrings. They have to learn their emotions from books and yukky Hollywood films, I think. It just isn't in them.

But like Ian Huntley, who actually said to the press that he was the last person to see the two girls, the brain plays terrible tricks.
Kate's tends to leak more and more I think. Gerry is better at sticking to the script although it annoys the hell out of him to be asked questions in the first place. Not part of the plan, this endless round of the same interview in different countries. Nasty, nasty Dr. Amaral!

by **PeterMac** 22.10.11 9:37

It seems to me that there are various strands of what we can loosely call 'evidence' which any theory MUST include.
Blood
Cadaverine
fingerprints
phone ‘pings’
mileage on hire car
crying for hours
subsequent actions by all members of the group

And a whole list of things which have been offered as 'evidence' which we can ignore
shutters
window
whoosh of curtains
bundleman with blanket
bundleman with small girl
pyjamas white or pink
time-line version 1
time-line version 2
chloroform
and so on

I have a problem with introducing yet another element, namely a boat, as this involves an owner, and more time than we have available.
I find the phrase 'no stone unturned' strangely compelling, and the incessant references to Rocha Negra - no fewer than 7 times in the book, plus photo - is something that Pat Brown focussed on.
If you look on maps.google or google earth you can see quite a lot of detail of that area.

by rainbow-fairy 22.10.11 9:40

tigger wrote:Rainbow Fairy wrote: snipped quoteI think there was mention of planting a rose bush for Maddie (or did I dream that?) Plus I found it creepy when K said she goes into M's bedroom and opens the curtains to look out over the garden 'to say hello to Maddie'. It is often asked also why K+G don't sell up and downsize to somewhere cheaper...

Then I wasn't sure about that, and Kates comment about leaving PT 'leaving Maddie behind I found that really odd. I place quite a bit of importance on what people say - the brain will leak the truth out in any way it can! unquote

As for downsizing from Rothley Towers, wouldn't befit their status. In fact I'm sure they'd love to live somewhere a lot posher, but it's too risky to stretch the Fund that far. If all had gone to plan, they would now be living in a lovely big country house with acres of land.

That bit about saying hello to Maddie, the rose bush etc. Bound to be in some or other Mills and Boone. Keeping the room as it was will also tug at the public's heartstrings. They have to learn their emotions from books and yukky Hollywood films, I think. It just isn't in them.

But like Ian Huntley, who actually said to the press that he was the last person to see the two girls, the brain plays terrible tricks.
Kate's tends to leak more and more I think. Gerry is better at sticking to the script although it annoys the hell out of him to be asked questions in the first place. Not part of the plan, this endless round of the same interview in different countries. Nasty, nasty Dr. Amaral!

Absolutely, well said tigger. Your reasons for rejection of Rothley as deposition site are the same reasons I am leaning back towards :Huelva.
Dissolving in acid ground fits more with the way K is so detached, methodical.

by Guest 22.10.11 10:18

Fossilfuel wrote:
I feel that if it was disposed of in a panic, due to shock of an unexpected death or limited disposal time, it would have been 'dumped' somewhere quickly without much thought and would have been found relatively quickly, ie Jo Yeates.
But we know it was not. As confirmed by the forensic findings in the boot of their hire car.

If the parents had had more time (and maybe they did?) they could have been more methodical in their approach, researched the topography of the area and found a highly 'suitable' place where a body could lay undiscovered.

I know there is the school of thought that Madeleines body could have been refrigerated for a while and then carried in the boot of the Renault for disposal?
It's hardly a thought if we consider that 15/19 markers that match to Madeleine's DNA was found in their hire car, rented some 21 days after she went missing.

As for disposal, I suspect she was driven to Lagos marina, where she boarded a Yacht back to the UK, to be buried in a remote spot in Scotland. Just like a scene out of the Da Vinci Code. sarcastic

by Nina 22.10.11 10:44

I think that Madeleine was eventually buried, in keeping with her faith. I do think though that the grave is somewhere where the parents can visit without anyone being suspicious, where as trips to Huelva would raise questions, though I do think the trip to Huelva had some objective other than handing out leaflets.

I think the Huelva visit was a trip for a hand over of her body to third persons.

by **PeterMac** 22.10.11 11:06

Stella wrote:
As for disposal, I suspect she was driven to Lagos marina, where she boarded a Yacht back to the UK, to be buried in a remote spot in Scotland. Just like a scene out of the Da Vinci Code.

My problem with this is that it introduces yet more people into the conspiracy. There needs to be a sea going yacht in Lagos at precisely the right time, with a crew, (which for that trip would need a minimum of 2, unless there was a super-hero single-handed round-the-world person on board) all or most of whom need to be briefed to be silent for the rest of their lives, and the yacht needs to be ready for its trip, and not to put into a single port on the route from Southern Portugal to Scotland ??? Movements of ships in and out are recorded, just like in Barcelona!
I find this a bit difficult.

by Guest 22.10.11 11:17

PeterMac wrote:
Stella wrote:
As for disposal, I suspect she was driven to Lagos marina, where she boarded a Yacht back to the UK, to be buried in a remote spot in Scotland. Just like a scene out of the Da Vinci Code.
My problem with this is that it introduces yet more people into the conspiracy. There needs to be a sea going yacht in Lagos at precisely the right time, with a crew, (which for that trip would need a minimum of 2, unless there was a super-hero single-handed round-the-world person on board) all or most of whom need to be briefed to be silent for the rest of their lives, and the yacht needs to be ready for its trip, and not to put into a single port on the route from Southern Portugal to Scotland ??? Movements of ships in and out are recorded, just like in Barcelona!
I find this a bit difficult.

If one of the people originally invloved in the cover up whose name we already know, had very close ties with someone in the Lagos marina area, whose name is also already in the Police files. No additional person was needed and the body could have been in Lagos on ice all along..

Then if a yacht, not a posh one, an old one, was asked to drop a large haul of 'sardines' in boxes very quickly to Scotland and this person was paid a kings ransom for helping out a valid fish customer of someones. Who would ask questions? Do border patrol check every fish in every box?

by Smokeandmirrors 22.10.11 11:46

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Rainbow and Tigger, yes, there are definately a strong argument that the body was moved. The popular theory of what happened could well be how it did actually happen. I find the notion that someone could store and move a dead child perfectly nausiating TBH. I do however, think it is possible something could be dumped in the sea and never recovered, unproveable either way until one does it!!. Cadavarine in the Renault? Watching the dogs you cannot argue with them can you? I'm just saying that I think it is possible that a body could be at sea and it be a safe place of concealement, and that I think it very risky moving a body. I've followed many of the discussions about concealement and disposal, and whilst I cannot better the theories based on what information is available and/or provable info, it still sounds very gross and complicated for a bunch of boring 30 somethings to pull off in a foreign country. They could not do it without the help of someone living in or around PDL. If it was Murat, well then the spotlight needs to spin back onto him. If not Murat who? Without the third party, IMO it's not possible.

by rainbow-fairy 22.10.11 12:09

PeterMac wrote:
Stella wrote:
As for disposal, I suspect she was driven to Lagos marina, where she boarded a Yacht back to the UK, to be buried in a remote spot in Scotland. Just like a scene out of the Da Vinci Code.
My problem with this is that it introduces yet more people into the conspiracy. There needs to be a sea going yacht in Lagos at precisely the right time, with a crew, (which for that trip would need a minimum of 2, unless there was a super-hero single-handed round-the-world person on board) all or most of whom need to be briefed to be silent for the rest of their lives, and the yacht needs to be ready for its trip, and not to put into a single port on the route from Southern Portugal to Scotland ??? Movements of ships in and out are recorded, just like in Barcelona!
I find this a bit difficult.

PeterMac, I agree with this. There is already too many people involved (when more than one person knows something, it's no longer a secret and becomes progressively harder to keep the more elements are added?)
I did wonder about the 'inflatable sign' and it's transport - wasn't it family members that organised and drove it?

by rainbow-fairy 22.10.11 12:39

Smokeandmirrors wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Rainbow and Tigger, yes, there are definately a strong argument that the body was moved. The popular theory of what happened could well be how it did actually happen. I find the notion that someone could store and move a dead child perfectly nausiating TBH. I do however, think it is possible something could be dumped in the sea and never recovered, unproveable either way until one does it!!. Cadavarine in the Renault? Watching the dogs you cannot argue with them can you? I'm just saying that I think it is possible that a body could be at sea and it be a safe place of concealment, and that I think it very risky moving a body. I've followed many of the discussions about concealment and disposal, and whilst I cannot better the theories based on what information is available and/or provable info, it still sounds very gross and complicated for a bunch of boring 30 somethings to pull off in a foreign country. They could not do it without the help of someone living in or around PDL. If it was Murat, well then the spotlight needs to spin back onto him. If not Murat who? Without the third party, IMO it's not possible.

Smokeandmirrors, I really hope you don't take this the wrong way and in the spirit it's intended. I'm having trouble, from the tone of your post, working out whether the bolded quote about cadaverine and not arguing with the dogs, is sarcastic, ironic, or you really DO BELIEVE that you can't argue with their findings? This is genuine confusion on my part, I'm not accusing you of making mischief - just thinking I may have misunderstood?
From my point of view, I don't think the dogs can be argued with! It's not in a dogs nature to lie, nor be biased, and some comments I've read that they alert to 'please' their handler is just not true. K+G have slipped up more than once with their rubbishing of the dogs. The USA 'Zapata' case is the biggie! They quoted how the dogs were wrong, there was no murder, the dogs had alerted in various places just to get a scooby snack from their handler, etc etc. They used this example like a talisman (or a life-jacket). If IRC, no blood or DNA was found to corroborate the dog alerts and Mr Zapata maintained his innocence. All looked good for K+G 'til Mr Zapata finally confessed to murder, admitting his wife's body had INDEED been in EVERY PLACE THE DOGS ALERTED!!! Oops, all of a sudden it was no longer the Mccann's life-jacket - hmmm, wonder why?!?

I tend to go with the alerts, and storage, which rules out the sea for me. But I can see the rationale behind your theory! It would be perfectly believable if not for the cadaverine.

by Nina 22.10.11 13:10

I have been searching re a Catholic not been buried in consecratsd ground and found this interesting,

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Cemeteries in civil law

It would be impossible here to deal in detail with the various legislative enactments which now almost everywhere prevent the Church's burial requirements from being carried into effect. (See BURIAL.) "From the principles which now obtain in German law", writes Dr. Peter Lex in his recent work, "Das kirchliche Begrabnissrecht", "the idea of a Catholic churchyard from the point of view of Catholic teaching and practice, has been completely suppressed and the cemetery has been degraded into a mere burial-ground belonging to the civil corporation." In such matters as the burial of Protestants or non-Christians in ground formerly blessed for the faithful only, the Church when opposed by the civil power allows her ministers to give way rather than provoke a conflict. In England, according to the Burials Act of 1852, the "Burial Boards" in different parts of the country are empowered to provide adequate graveyards out of the rates. In these a certain portion is consecrated according to the rites of the Church of England and the remainder is left unconsecrated. Of this last such a proportion as may be necessary is assigned for the use of Catholics, who are free to consecrate it for themselves. Moreover, when a chapel is erected upon the Church of England portion of the cemetery, a similar building must as a rule be provided in the other sections. The act assigns to the "Burial Board", at least indirectly, the control of the inscriptions to be set up upon the tombstones in the cemetery, but these powers are generally administered without hardship to Catholics. When Catholics are buried in ground which is not specially consecrated for their use the priest conducting the funeral is directed by the "Rituale Romanum" to bless the grave, and if the priest himself cannot conduct the funeral further, to put blessed earth into the coffin. Children who have died before baptism, we may notice, should be interred apart in ground which has not been consecrated; and it is usual even in the consecrated portion to assign a separate place for infants that have been baptized.

In particular being buried in ground that is not consecrated and putting consecrated soil in the coffin.

by **tigger** 22.10.11 14:07

Smokeandmirrors wrote: snipped - that I think it very risky moving a body. I've followed many of the discussions about concealement and disposal, and whilst I cannot better the theories based on what information is available and/or provable info, it still sounds very gross and complicated for a bunch of boring 30 somethings to pull off in a foreign country. They could not do it without the help of someone living in or around PDL. If it was Murat, well then the spotlight needs to spin back onto him. If not Murat who? Without the third party, IMO it's not possible.

I am totally in favour of a third party to do the 'dirty' work.
There are a number of factors we can only surmise, but think of Burgau (see the topic) the very suspect photographs of a heavily made up Maddie and the fact that Gerry had already been to Portugal (probably PdL) a number of times. (It's in the book). So he did have contacts.
I try to keep it legal here but have my own ideas. Point is: I think it wouldn't be too difficult to get a third party to cooperate if it is in that party's own interests to do so.
I think you are arguing from a point of convenience, how to get rid of an incriminating body asap. I am arguing from a psychological point, I don't think they committed out and out violence against the child and I don't think they would just get rid of the body in the most convenient way by throwing into the sea. I think that they had already someone in mind to help them dispose of the body in a way that would allow them to feel almost blameless.

Now I am not thinking of a plan where all the T7 were fully complicit, the whole of the Healey/McCann family was fully complicit but they might have been 'prepared' by hints of illness etc.
But if my sister tells me for instance, that her youngest son, who already suffers hearing loss, has a number of other symptoms, has died because she's given him an overdose by mistake, am I going to shop her to the police? If she then tells me she will lose her house, go to prison, lose her job, her other children will go to foster parents, will I say anything to the police if the body disappears? If she tells me a friend has secretly buried the boy and included earth blessed by a priest, has masses said for him, will I tell her to fess up?
I'm afraid I'd say nothing, because no good can come of it. But had she told me she'd had the body thrown into deep water, I would have thought twice. I would certainly be scandalised. But still, I wasn't complicit until after the fact, but prepared for bad news before the fact.

Sorry, much too long, but I'm trying to say I understand the risks involved in moving a body. But all the attention was on the McCanns, everybody else was free to do what they wanted without being observed.
Incidentally, their great friend Jon Corner accompanied them on the Huelva trip.

by Guest 22.10.11 15:25

tigger wrote:I am totally in favour of a third party to do the 'dirty' work.
There are a number of factors we can only surmise, but think of Burgau (see the topic) the very suspect photographs of a heavily made up Maddie and the fact that Gerry had already been to Portugal (probably PdL) a number of times. (It's in the book). So he did have contacts.
I try to keep it legal here but have my own ideas. Point is: I think it wouldn't be too difficult to get a third party to cooperate if it is in that party's own interests to do so.

Exactly tigger. thumbsup

The third party could have been looking after his long term interests.

by Nina 22.10.11 16:31

Re the buriel in unconsicrated ground link that hasn't been commented upon ..... it would appear from this that a Catholic can be buried if needs be anywhere and if a handful of consecrated earth is in their coffin or around them then in the eyes of their church that will be sufficient for their faith.

So if this is correct within the Catholic faith Madeleine could be buried anywhere by anyone and for her soul a handful of consecrated soil/earth about her will ensure she is buried within the faith.

by **tigger** 22.10.11 17:03

Nina wrote:Re the buriel in unconsicrated ground link that hasn't been commented upon ..... it would appear from this that a Catholic can be buried if needs be anywhere and if a handful of consecrated earth is in their coffin or around them then in the eyes of their church that will be sufficient for their faith.

So if this is correct within the Catholic faith Madeleine could be buried anywhere by anyone and for her soul a handful of consecrated soil/earth about her will ensure she is buried within the faith.

Clever of you to find it. Just what I needed. I'm still convinced they think they did 'the right thing' as far as was possible. I don't agree of course!
If the family is aware of her death and burial, these details would satisfy them that a proper burial had taken place according to their faith.

One other thing, at some date, I think the same day they went to Marocco to check out a sighting,(July?) the family had a picnic at Sagres. Both Gerry and Kate were dressed in black, I have never seen either of them in black before or since. Wonder if it was some sort of memorial meeting?

by ufercoffy 22.10.11 17:09

It's funny you should mention that tigger cos I was only looking for pics today of the Healy's dressed in black and was wondering about some kind of burial/memorial service. I remember it being discussed on the 3As.

by Nina 22.10.11 17:12

tigger wrote:
Nina wrote:Re the buriel in unconsicrated ground link that hasn't been commented upon ..... it would appear from this that a Catholic can be buried if needs be anywhere and if a handful of consecrated earth is in their coffin or around them then in the eyes of their church that will be sufficient for their faith.

So if this is correct within the Catholic faith Madeleine could be buried anywhere by anyone and for her soul a handful of consecrated soil/earth about her will ensure she is buried within the faith.

Clever of you to find it. Just what I needed. I'm still convinced they think they did 'the right thing' as far as was possible. I don't agree of course!
If the family is aware of her death and burial, these details would satisfy them that a proper burial had taken place according to their faith.

One other thing, at some date, I think the same day they went to Marocco to check out a sighting,(July?) the family had a picnic at Sagres. Both Gerry and Kate were dressed in black, I have never seen either of them in black before or since. Wonder if it was some sort of memorial meeting?

Thankyou Tigger for your acknowledgement and I hope it helps you and others.

Re the picnic, hardly picnic gear when I have seen the pair coming out of church services as though they have just left the beach, in particular Kate who seems to like to flash her chest and arms. As a non Catholic, I am C of E we always covered our arms and also head, but I am old enough to be her mother so maybe more formal.

So this picnic they were dressed in black. They certainly were when they went to see the Pope and I think when they went to Fatima, but could be incorrect there.

So the black gear was, imo, for a purpose,